OK, looks like I'm going to get an sensor brush, a pack of green swabs and VDust Plus. Thanks for the help.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
If the "Year of the Lens" turns out to be just slapping IS on some existing lenses, I will be highly disappointed.
And noise as well. From everything I've heard, STM is quieter than USM (even the newest USM lenses like 24, 28 and 35mm IS primes). Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.Second, more recent Ring USM lenses (once attached to an enabled body) are capable of the same precision & speed of screw-type STM, so while older USM lenses may need to be upgraded newer ones should work fine with DPAF.
I think the question is whether they can be as graceful at starting and stopping their refocus as the STMs. For video, speed of focus is secondary to smoothness.
You also seem to think that the original 1Ds DSLR was un-innovative. It was the first FF DSLR!Unfortunately incorrect -
Interesting is NIKON who first went into the battle not with CANON but with MF cameras in general. Now Canon lost a competition and no one can't ever tell me that they don't have the MEGA pixels since 2002....Are you saying Canon has never had the megapixel crown since 2002 (excluding MF competition)? Because that is an outright lie.
When someone attacks a Canon body, you always resort to raw sales. That'S not very interesting.
The point of citing sales figures is that profit is the primary driver for publicly-traded companies like Canon and Nikon, and what they care about is developing products that will sell well and provide a return on investment, not products that will please a minority segment of the market that happens to be very vocal on internet forums.
You may not find it interesting, but that's the reality of business...and the reality that determines what products are available to purchase (or in some cases, products that people have no intention of purchasing, but choose to complain about anyway).
I'd also suggest that elaborating on a rational viewpoint is more interesting than a weak, one-line 'refutation'.
... This camera will be Canon’s first foray into the high megapixel realm for a DSLR.What is your definition of high megapixel? Back in 2002 when the 1Ds was announced, 11MP was a lot compared to most other DSLRs at 6 or less, and most P&S cameras less than 5MP. In 2005 16MP was considered 'high resolution' (1Ds Mark II). Same with 21MP in 2007 with the 1Ds Mark III.
Granted, the RX100 II has 20 MP (vs. 14MP for G1X and 12MP for S120/G16) so it will have better resolution at base ISO (~20% higher linear resolution all things being equal), but will that make much or any difference at higher ISOs, or printed < 30x40, or shared online? Although, now that I'm thinking of it, the RX100 II will have a FL advantage over the G1X when cropped to 12MP (120mm vs. 112mm).Unfortunately Canon has nothing even remotely comparable to the Sony RX100 II at the moment.The G1X is not 'remotely comparable'? While it is not in the same size/form factor it has several advantages over the RX100 II
Yes, you are right. "Remotely comparable". However, I'd take an RX100II any time over a G1X. Not only because of the smaller size, but also because I believe [not checked] that RX-100 II beats the G1X in image quality - despite the sensor size difference. At least at the most frequently used lower ISO settings.
As far as the S-120 or G16 are concerned: they are not even remotely comparable to the RX100-II. :-)
Unfortunately Canon has nothing even remotely comparable to the Sony RX100 II at the moment.